[Foundation-l] The average voter and voting systems (was Re: Notice of the results of the WMF Board of Trustees election)

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

While I agree with nearly all Michaels views...

On 7/13/07, Michael Snow <wikipedia at att.net> wrote:

 <snip> (everything before this I think was very well said)

Introducing unfamiliar voting systems, and expecting voters to mentally
> weigh candidates in ways that aren't self-evident from the ballot, is a
> tricky exercise. Those who want to advocate even more "ideal" voting
> systems, hoping voters will use more complex weighing to let us
> interpret their thought processes, need to make a compelling case. This
> is especially true if we want to encourage broader participation at the
> same time that we're placing these demands on voters. Otherwise, we
> might as well hand the task over to a select committee to pick board
> members for us.


While I think the Single Transferrable Vote is the best voting system, the
electorate probably is not sophisticated enough to grasp it, and vote
counting on it with the number of seats and candidates we have, would be a
positive nightmare, so yes, I am absolutely in agreement with the
paragraph above.

Instead, I would suggest keeping our present voting system in some form,
> but also making the decision faced by the voter more explicit. This can
> be done by presenting the voter with two choices for each candidate -
> Yes and No, or Approve and Disapprove if you prefer. This makes clear
> what you want the voter to tell you, and that the voter is answering
> this question independently for each candidate. In addition, there
> should be another option, as the default until the voter actually votes,
> to not vote on that particular candidate. That way people aren't forced
> to make a decision on all candidates when they know enough that they
> want to vote on some of them. In the final result, "non-votes" as to a
> candidate would be discarded, and the candidate(s) with the highest
> percentage of Yes-over-No votes would be the winner(s).


Labeling the "chads" (for want of a better word) with Approve and Dissaprove
would be a fantastic innovation.

However  the option of  voting yes/no/dunno, no no no and further no.
That would make strategical voting even more hair-raisingly byzantine.
Please no, just no.

(If it's thought necessary, you could require a minimum threshold of
> total votes, so you don't get a largely unknown candidate sneaking in
> with very little overall support. I doubt that would be needed, though.
> A lot of people would likely vote explicitly to disapprove someone who
> was completely unknown to them, and use "non-votes" when feeling
> ambivalent about a candidate. This and related sentiments are
> illustrated by the frequent requests for some way to vote "against" and
> not just "for" candidates, by voters who think that's missing from our
> system.)


Please no threshold either...

--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]